Jesus would be O.K. with abortion. Not only that, Jesus's position on abortion would be even "more radical" than Barack Obama's! That was the wild, and patently false, assertion from Barack Obama supporter Dr. Marc Lamont Hill, a guest on Wednesday's The O'Reilly Factor on FNC (8/13/08).

[snip] The earliest Christian writings reveal that the earliest followers of Jesus were universally against abortion:

-- The Didache ("The Teaching of the Twelve") may be the earliest Christian document not found in the Bible. It has been dated at 50 A.D. It says: "You shall not murder. You shall not commit adultery. You shall not seduce boys. You shall not commit fornication... You shall not procure [an] abortion, nor destroy a newborn child."

[snip]

If anyone ever needed an example of how callous and clueless so-called "progressive" pundits can be when it comes to the topic of Christianity...

+_+_+_+_+_+

From Wednesday's The O'Reilly Factor (8/13/08):

O'REILLY: The question is simple. (crosstalk) Would Jesus be as progressive on abortion - does he believe Jesus would, based upon his knowledge of theology - as he [Obama] is?

HILL: Absolutely. I think, absolutely.

O'REILLY: You believe Jesus would say, "Partial-birth abortion: No problem"?

HILL: I think Jesus would be even more radical than all the candidates who are --

O'REILLY (incredulous): On this issue?

HILL: On this issue and on all these other issues. I think a fundamentalist understanding of the pro-life/pro-choice debate is misguided and actually misses the point. And I think Barack Obama understands this kind of thing -- (inaudible) close to the center --

O'REILLY (incredulous): That would be a stunning dissertation if the Senator would give it. And I would absolutely want to hear it.

49”I have come to bring fire on the earth, and how I wish it were already kindled! 50But I have a baptism to undergo, and how distressed I am until it is completed! 51Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division. 52From now on there will be five in one family divided against each other, three against two and two against three. 53They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law.”

9
posted on 08/25/2008 11:08:35 AM PDT
by Crazieman
(Vote Juan McAmnesty in 2008! Because freedom abroad is more important than freedom at home!)

The fundamentalists among us are neither shocked nor incensed by this latest move in Hussein’s game. He has been rebuked by Bible believers, and the move is now his, and only his, to correct or continue on his path. God is in control of whomever wins the election, and the President can do nothing without God’s OK, even though God gives him, and us, choice.

When you examine the pedigree of their ideas, what you come to understand is that the abortion issue is one of the keystones to devaluing human life. This is something that is implicit in the ideology of the Left; it’s cast into their philosophical DNA.

Humans are things.

That the essence of it. Humans are fungible and ultimately disposable “assets”.

This is why you’ve got the likes of Margaret Sanger and Dr. Peter Singer doing their damndest to move the goalposts when it comes to defining life and humanity. Singer, for example, has argued that infants up to 28 months old don’t really have any cognitive ability that defines them as human. So it’s OK to ‘terminate’ them if the parent (or really, the State) so chooses.

Who lives, who dies. That’s the power they seek. They are all monsters, monsters from the deepest dark heart of of our existence and history is replete with the outcomes and the evidence of their sick Utopian ideas: slaughter and mass murder on a scale that beggars the imagination.

History also tells us what we must do to deal with them.

18
posted on 08/25/2008 11:18:10 AM PDT
by Noumenon
(Time for Atlas to shrug - and pick up a gun.)

Besides, if he didn’t take the time to condemn slavery, why should we care about what he thinks about fetuses? Unless of course, it means more people to be born and become slaves worshipping him, well then, that makes sense.

15Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein.

That is yet another one they misinterpret.

They think it means they have to act childish in all matters.

That leads to them wearing funny costumes and ridiculous body adornment, while chanting & carrying childish slogans, and shouting obscenities, while parading through our streets, believing that they are "making a difference".

32
posted on 08/25/2008 11:46:21 AM PDT
by ApplegateRanch
(The Great Obamanation of Desolation, attempting to sit in the Oval Office, where he ought not..)

Elian, my fellow FReeper, you seem to think that everything Jesus said and taught was written in the Gospels, when the Gospels themselves testify that He said much, much more than is recorded:

John 21:25 And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written.

Therefore your assumption that Jesus ought to have been expected to catalog and condemn every known, past and future, type of human cruelty, violation and aggression, is mistaken.

Jesus was often confronted with moral quetions, and He tended to answer in summary rather than in catalog form:

"[Loving God] is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."

Yhis leaves it on the honest questioner to ask himself: "Would I want someone to enslave me? Then I should not enslave other. Would I want someone to abort me? Then I should not abort others." And so forth.

That, with sufficient reflection, should answer most questions of morality.

35
posted on 08/25/2008 11:49:05 AM PDT
by Mrs. Don-o
("The first duty of intelligent men of our day is the restatement of the obvious. " - George Orwell)

Neither Hill nor Obama have read the Bible through even once. They did not read how David praised God for knowing him even before his mother knew she was pregnant. Obviously, unborn babies are people. One cannot know someone unless they are alive.

When you examine the pedigree of their ideas, what you come to understand is that the abortion issue is one of the keystones to devaluing human life. This is something that is implicit in the ideology of the Left; its cast into their philosophical DNA. Humans are things. That the essence of it. Humans are fungible and ultimately disposable assets.

"...social engineering--the notion that human beings can be shovelled around like bags of cement." - Paul Johnson, Modern Times: The World From the Twenties to the Eighties

38
posted on 08/25/2008 1:28:27 PM PDT
by Alex Murphy
(What can I say? It's a gift. And I didn't get a receipt, so I can't exchange it.)

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.